Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Page of 4801
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
341 to 360 of 96001 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The High Court examined the jurisdiction of the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council to refer disputes between the parties for arbitration under the 2006 Act. It held that although the agreement was entered into before the supplier registered as a small enterprise, the work continued after registration. Relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in Shanti Conductors' case, it ruled that the applicability of the Act is determined based on when goods/services were rendered, not the contract date. The Court noted that MRPL had initially raised the jurisdictional issue but later gave it up before the Single Judge. Hence, the Council had jurisdiction to refer disputes to arbitration u/s 18 of the 2006 Act. Regarding the impact of the "No Claim Certificate" issued by the supplier, the Court refrained from examining it as MRPL's petition u/s 34 of the Arbitration Act was pending adjudication. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
The High Court examined the jurisdiction of the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council to refer disputes between the parties for arbitration under the 2006 Act. It held that although the agreement was entered into before the supplier registered as a small enterprise, the work continued after registration. Relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in Shanti Conductors' case, it ruled that the applicability of the Act is determined based on when goods/services were rendered, not the contract date. The Court noted that MRPL had initially raised the jurisdictional issue but later gave it up before the Single Judge. Hence, the Council had jurisdiction to refer disputes to arbitration u/s 18 of the 2006 Act. Regarding the impact of the "No Claim Certificate" issued by the supplier, the Court refrained from examining it as MRPL's petition u/s 34 of the Arbitration Act was pending adjudication. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
